Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pi-Shen Seet, Professor of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Edith Cowan University

Once again, housing affordability is at the forefront of an Australian federal election.

Both major parties have put housing policies at the centre of their respective campaigns. But there are still concerns too little is being done to address supply.

One of the biggest hurdles is an ongoing shortage of skilled tradespeople, and difficulties attracting new workers. The construction industry accounts for 9% of Australia’s workforce. Yet an estimated 35% of workers lack formal qualifications.

On Wednesday, Labor announced an election promise to fast-track formal trade qualifications for about 6,000 experienced but unqualified tradies.

The Advanced Entry Trades Training program would start in 2026 and cost A$78 million.

This program should help address some of the skills shortages in the sector. But it will be a long time before these benefits begin flowing through the system. And Australia is still likely to fall short of the government’s ambitious new home targets.

Recognising skills we already have

The Advanced Entry Trades Training program is intended to partly bridge the gap in construction skills shortages through a process called “recognition of prior learning” – and by offering free training to fill any skill gaps.

In principle, recognition of prior learning allows individuals with substantial and relevant industry experience to attain formal qualifications without lengthy training programs.

A similar approach was adopted in the healthcare sector as an emergency response to the pandemic, to boost the number of qualified workers.

For the construction industry, it will encompass workers currently in the industry who have not completed an apprenticeship, as well as skilled migrants in Australia whose abilities remain unverified.

This process can improve pay and conditions for participants. But it can also potentially fast-track their entry into the qualified workforce, addressing immediate skills shortages.

Read more:
A grab bag of campaign housing policies. But will they fix the affordability crisis beyond the election?

Will it work?

Labor’s new initiative mirrors an existing program at the state level, the New South Wales government’s Trade Pathways for Experienced Workers Program.

According to Labor, this program saw 1,200 students earn their qualifications in an average time of seven months (as opposed to several years).

It’s important to note this includes trades from all sectors of the NSW economy. But it is much faster than the traditional process of skill recognition. The Parkinson Review of Australia’s migration system found this process can take up to 18 months for a skilled migrant and cost over $9,000.

Read more:
Australia has a new National Skills Agreement. What does this mean for vocational education?

Increased housing supply? Not soon

Combined with other initiatives such as incentive payments for construction apprentices, the new Advanced Entry Trades Training program should help address some skills shortages in the sector.

Australia’s peak construction industry body, Master Builders Australia, praised the proposal, citing its own analysis suggesting for every new qualified tradie, an extra 2.4 homes can be built.

Even with these initiatives, the sector will likely fall short of the 83,000 additional skilled tradespeople needed to meet the Albanese government’s target to build 1.2 million new homes over five years.

And it may mainly solve a categorisation issue. Currently, only about 80% of employers in the construction sector in Australia require all job applicants to hold a formal qualification.

Crucially, it doesn’t address the core problem of attracting higher numbers of suitable people to a very traditional industry and helping them finish their qualifications. Almost half of construction sector apprentices do not complete their training.

Other challenges

There are other challenges for recognition of prior learning schemes more broadly.

Research into recognition of prior learning for construction sector apprentices suggests some Australian employers and training providers may be averse to fast-tracking training. About 64% of assessed apprentices had prior experience and skills, but only 30% had their training shortened.

These issues are even more complex when considering accelerated pathways for skilled migrants from a range of countries. There are some significant, well-documented challenges in transferring or recognising vocational qualifications across international boundaries.

More to be done

The Advanced Entry Trades Training program may go some way to alleviating a skills shortage in construction. But it will only partially address the broader issues of supply.

Australia’s vocational education and training systems are complex, making it difficult to predict the outcomes.

The proposed program does not address the problem of rising construction material costs and shortages. This problem is worsened by the declining productivity of the housing construction sector, which has halved over the last 30 years.

Declining productivity isn’t just down to skilled labour shortages. It has also been attributed to other factors such as complex planning approvals, limited innovation, and a predominance of small firms.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Many experienced tradies don’t have formal qualifications. Could fast-tracked recognition ease the housing crisis? – https://theconversation.com/many-experienced-tradies-dont-have-formal-qualifications-could-fast-tracked-recognition-ease-the-housing-crisis-255108

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Meade, Adjunct Associate Professor, Centre for Applied Energy Economics and Policy Research, Griffith University

With ongoing cost of living pressures, the Australian and New Zealand supermarket sectors are attracting renewed political attention on both sides of the Tasman.

Allegations of price gouging have become a political issue in the Australian federal election. At the same time, the New Zealand government has announced that “all options” are on the table to address a lack of competition in the sector – including possible breakup of the existing players.

But it is not clear breaking up the supermarkets or other government interventions will improve the sector for shoppers and suppliers.

In 2022, I co-authored a government-commissioned analysis looking at whether New Zealand’s two main supermarket groups should be forced to sell some of their stores to create a third competing chain.

We found it was possible under some scenarios that breakup could benefit consumers. But key uncertainties and implementation risks meant consumers could lose overall.

A lot hinges on whether breakup causes supermarkets’ input costs to rise or product variety to fall. Even in more positive scenarios at least some consumers could be left worse off.

Watchdog concerns

Competition authorities – the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and New Zealand’s Commerce Commission – have conducted supermarket sector studies. They each expressed concern at significant barriers to entry and expansion in the sector and supermarkets’ resulting high levels of profitability.

This year, the ACCC concluded margins earned by Australia’s main supermarkets are among the highest of supermarket businesses in comparable countries. Similarly, in 2022 the Commerce Commission found New Zealand’s supermarkets were earning excess profits of around NZ$430m a year.

While high profits might mean that market power is being abused, it could also mean managers are doing a good job. Or have had a great run of luck. Alternative explanations for high profits would need to be ruled out before putting fingers on regulatory triggers.

Barriers to entry

The starting point is to acknowledge that high profits and prices go hand in hand with barriers to entry and challenges in achieving economies of scale.

In other words, some sectors are less competitive than others simply because a lack of demand or high costs make it unprofitable for additional competitors to either enter or remain in the market.

Countries like Australia and New Zealand, with low population densities and large service areas, face high costs of nationwide supply. They also face significant shipping distances from other countries. This limits the ability of overseas entrants using their existing buying and supply infrastructures.

That said, some barriers to entry might be artificial or caused by existing firms stifling new competitors.

Existing supermarkets in both countries have gained controlling stakes in the land needed to set up new supermarkets – something regulatory settings can prevent.

Another challenge for new chains is the process of getting planning and land use consents – something policymakers can address.

This points to key elements of a test for whether supermarkets are charging too much. One is a recognition that there can be natural reasons for limited competition, and unless technologies or consumer preferences change that will remain the case.

Another is a focus on the things that can be changed – whether at the firm or policy level – in a way that benefits consumers and suppliers. Finally, policymakers need to consider whether the benefits of implementing them outweigh the costs.

Testing the market

Building on work developed by Nobel economist Oliver Williamson, a “three-limb test” was used in the 2017 government-commissioned assessment of fuel pricing in New Zealand that I co-authored. The same could be used to assess the supermarket sector.

That three-limb test asks

• are there features of the existing industry structure and conduct giving cause for concern
• can those causes for concern be remedied
• would the benefits of remedying those concerns outweigh the costs of doing so?

If the answer to all three limbs is yes, that suggests suppliers are charging too much (or delivering too little) since there are practical ways to improve on the status quo.

A virtue of such a test is that is can be applied in any sector where there are high firm concentration, barriers to entry and high profit margins.

Importantly, the test looks beyond just what firms are (or are not) doing and asks whether policy and regulatory settings are ripe for improvements too.

The test is also pragmatic – it shouldn’t trigger changes unless they are clearly expected to do more good than harm. This is important if interventions are risky, costly or irreversible, especially in sectors that are important to all of us.

Politicians on both sides of the Tasman are floating the possibility of supermarket breakup, among other possible interventions. The three-limb test helps to identify whether any proposed interventions are a good idea and whether supermarket prices are higher than they need to be.

Richard Meade co-authored a 2022 study funded by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment examining the costs and benefits of breaking up New Zealand’s major supermarkets. The views expressed in this article are his own, and do not purport to represent those of any other party or organisation.

– ref. This may be as good as it gets: NZ and Australia face a complicated puzzle when it comes to supermarket prices – https://theconversation.com/this-may-be-as-good-as-it-gets-nz-and-australia-face-a-complicated-puzzle-when-it-comes-to-supermarket-prices-254987

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erika K. Smith, Associate Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University

This article contains mention of racist terms in historical context.

Every Anzac Day, Australians are presented with narratives that re-inscribe particular versions of our national story.

One such narrative persistently claims “fuzzy wuzzy angel” was used as an “affectionate” name for local stretcher-bearers of sick and wounded Australian soldiers during the New Guinea campaign of 1942 to 1945.

Papua New Guineans called Australian soldiers masta (master), taubada (big man), and bos (boss). Australian soldiers called Papua New Guinean people by racist phrases including boong, nigger, kanaka, coon, boi, boy and wog.

Our new research shows that, far from being “affectionate”, the phrase fuzzy wuzzy angel is best understood in this context – and in the context of 500 years of anti-Black racism.

These other offensive terms used by soldiers are largely gone from the public domain, yet fuzzy wuzzy angel persists. We decided to explore this apparently acceptable form of contemporary racism.

Power relations across the centuries

In 1526 the Portuguese explorer Jorge de Menezes named islands in the west of what is now West Papua Ilhas dos Papuas.

“Papuas” was a borrowed word by the Portuguese of Malay/Indonesian origin, meaning “frizzled” or “curly-haired”. The islands were therefore known as the “islands of the frizzy-haired people”.

In 1545, the Spanish explorer Yñigo Ortiz de Retez named the east mainland Nueva Guinea (New Guinea). As historian J.H.F. Sollewijn Gelpke describes it, Ortiz de Retez saw a physical resemblance to the “frizzy haired inhabitants […] of the Guinea Coast in West Africa”.

The first usage we found of the phrase fuzzy wuzzy angels relating to the New Guinea campaign was in an article in the Sydney’s The Daily Mirror in 1942. A war correspondent reported troops along the Track were reciting a “catchy verse with a swing in it”.

The “catchy verse” appears to borrow directly from the 1892 poem Fuzzy Wuzzy, by English writer Rudyard Kipling. Kipling borrowed the phrase from how British soldiers referred to the Beja warriors of north-east Africa during the Mahdist (Anglo–Sudan) War of 1881–99.

Shortly after the poem was published in The Daily Mirror, the image of the “fuzzy wuzzy angel” was immortalised in a photograph. George Silk’s image shows Raphael Oimbari (Hanau village, Oro Province) walking with injured Australian soldier Private George “Dick” Whittington (2/10th Battalion) on Christmas Day, 1942.

While Whittington was identified as the injured soldier, it wasn’t until the 1970s that Oimbari was identified and named as the Papua New Guinean guide.

The cultural journey of Kipling’s poem in Africa to Australian infantry on the Kokoda follows the same route as Spanish and Portuguese sailors from African Guinea to Papua New Guinea.

This focus on frizzy or fuzzy hair homogenised Blackness under the colonial gaze.

Continuing racial relations

Far from being just stretcher bearers, local people during the Kokoda Campaign were often forced to support the Australian war effort in roles including cooks, cleaners, labourers, construction workers, farm hands and carriers of ammunition.

These roles have also disappeared from our national narrative, along with the more racist forms of address.

In place of historically accurate accounts is a distilled national narrative: iconic stretcher bearers “affectionately” known as fuzzy wuzzy angels.

There was little interest in the Australian war story in Papua New Guinea and the Kokoda Track between the end of the war and the early 1990s. Then, in 1992, Prime Minister Paul Keating kissed the foot of the Kokoda Memorial.

Attention by subsequent prime ministers and an increased number of books and films propelled the Kokoda Track into mainstream Australian consciousness.

Prime Minister John Howard made the “affectionate” usage claim in a speech to Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Bill Skate in 1998.

Papua New Guinean scholar Regis Tove Stella wrote in 2007 that fuzzy wuzzy angel is “belittling and consistent with the discourse of paternalism that largely characterised colonial administrative policy”.

Yet we continue to see Indigenous perspectives erased in favour of the “affectionate” account.

When Malcolm Turnbull laid a 75th anniversary wreath in April 2017, the Australian Associated Press included this explanatory paragraph:

Local Papua New Guinean men, dubbed affectionately the ‘Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels’, assisted and escorted wounded and injured Australian soldiers along the trail.

In 2024, “affectionate” was reinscribed by Peter Dutton in an address to parliament to honour Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape.

500 years of a racist phrase

Australia’s northernmost island, Saibai Island of Zenadh Kes/Torres Strait Islands, is less than 4 kilometres from Papua New Guinea – yet most Australians know little about our closest neighbours.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Papua New Guinea’s independence from Australia, mobilised by the Whitlam government, some 25 years behind the post-war decolonisation movement.

Yet official decolonisation has not stopped Australians from insisting that it is affectionate – and, by implication, not racist – to use colonial naming practices that date back some 500 years.

This article draws on research conducted during Erika K. Smith’s doctoral candidature which was financially supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award and a Western Sydney University Postgraduate Research Scholarship.

Ingrid Matthews does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The phrase ‘fuzzy wuzzy angels’ is far from affectionate – it reflects 500 years of racism – https://theconversation.com/the-phrase-fuzzy-wuzzy-angels-is-far-from-affectionate-it-reflects-500-years-of-racism-253953

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natalie Peng, Lecturer in Accounting, The University of Queensland

For Australians approaching retirement, recent market volatility may feel like more than just a bump in the road.

Unlike younger investors, who have time on their side, retirees don’t have the luxury of waiting out downturns. A sharp dip just before, or as you begin drawing down your superannuation, can leave lasting damage.

It’s not just about watching your super balance dip.

The real danger comes if you need to start withdrawing funds during a slump. Doing so can lock in losses and make it harder for your remaining savings to recover. The timing of poor market returns is known in finance circles as “sequencing risk”. And it can shorten the life of your retirement savings.

What’s going on in markets?

So far in 2025, global shares as measured by the MSCI World Index have fallen 4.6%. Concerns over stubborn inflation and trade tensions that will hurt growth are keeping investors on edge.

If your superannuation is in a “balanced” option, with diversified investments in stocks, bonds, private markets and cash, your balance will have fallen by less than this amount.

Zoom out and the story looks better. Over the past year, total returns for the MSCI index remain strong, up 6.5%.

It’s a reminder that downturns are often followed by rebounds. We saw this during the COVID crash in 2020, when markets plummeted, only to recover more than 50% over the following year.

Still, for those nearing retirement, the timing of these dips matters more than the averages. Uncertainty makes planning all the more crucial.

Is your super still in high gear?

Many Australians don’t know exactly how their super is invested. Most people are in default “balanced” or “lifecycle” options, which automatically shift from high-growth assets like shares to safer investments like bonds and cash as retirement approaches.

This design helps cushion your balance from big market hits as you near retirement. But if you’ve chosen a high-growth option or haven’t reviewed your investment settings in years, you could still be heavily exposed to volatility.

In that case, now’s the time to consider your options:

• delay retirement by a year or two to give your portfolio time to recover

• move to part-time work instead of retiring fully, reducing how much super you need to draw down

• review your budget. You can’t control the markets, but you can control your spending plans.

Don’t panic – reacting emotionally can cost you

When markets fall, it’s natural to feel the urge to switch your portfolio mix from stocks into cash. But this can turn temporary losses into permanent ones.

Instead, consider more measured steps. Transition-to-retirement strategies let you draw a partial income while keeping most of your super invested.

Annuities – which offer guaranteed income for life or a fixed term – are another option. Newer products also address longevity risk, which is the risk of outliving your savings.

What does a 5% drop really mean?

Let’s say you’re 65 and have a super balance of A$200,000 (for men, that’s roughly the median; for women, it’s lower due to factors like lower lifetime earnings and career breaks).

A 5% fall translates to a $10,000 loss. That might not seem huge, but if you were planning to draw down 5% of your balance annually – about $10,000 a year – that loss could effectively wipe out an entire year’s retirement income.

It doesn’t stop there. If left invested, that $10,000 could have continued to grow. Over a 20-year retirement, and assuming a 5% annual return, that $10,000 could have grown to over $26,000.

For retirees with smaller super balances or higher withdrawal rates, the impact of a market dip can be even more significant.

Many experts now expect long-term returns to be more modest than in recent decades. Ageing populations, climate change and shifting global dynamics are likely to weigh on growth.

This makes it even more important to avoid switching entirely into cash, which can erode your savings through inflation over what could be a 20- or 30-year retirement.

A smarter path to retirement

The best approach is to gradually shift your investments in the years leading up to retirement – not all at once in response to a market dip. Lifecycle options do this automatically, but if you’re managing your super yourself, it’s worth getting advice.

Your super fund’s website likely offers tools and calculators to help. ASIC’s MoneySmart retirement planner is another great resource. And don’t underestimate the value of calling your fund to ask:

• How is my super invested?

• Does this match my age and risk tolerance?

• What are my options if I want to make changes?

The bottom line

Retiring in a volatile market isn’t easy, but panic isn’t a plan. By understanding your investment mix, taking advantage of flexible retirement strategies, and seeking advice when needed, you can navigate uncertainty more confidently.

Planning for retirement isn’t about avoiding all risk – it’s about managing it. With the right tools and mindset, you can stay on course, even when markets wobble.

Read more:
How much do you need to retire? It’s probably a lot less than you think

Natalie Peng does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Markets are choppy. What should you do with your super if you are near retirement? – https://theconversation.com/markets-are-choppy-what-should-you-do-with-your-super-if-you-are-near-retirement-255017

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Judith Brett, Emeritus Professor of Politics, La Trobe University

Beatrice Faust is best remembered as the founder, early in 1972, of the Women’s Electoral Lobby (WEL). Women’s Liberation was already well under way. Betty Friedan had published The Feminine Mystique in 1962, arguing that many women found life as a full-time housewife and mother unfulfilling. With prevailing social assumptions denying them meaningful work, they were bored and frustrated, trapped by an ideal of domesticity that had become a prison.

Consciousness raising groups were meeting to understand how patriarchal assumptions had limited their members’ lives and self-understandings. Campaigns for equal pay, for childcare, for abortion law reform, were underway. In 1970 Germaine Greer, who had been at Melbourne University with Faust in the late 1950s, published The Female Eunuch, with its attack on the suburban consumerist nuclear family.

WEL began when Beatrice invited ten carefully-selected women to meet in the upstairs room of her Carlton terrace. The idea behind WEL was simple, as many brilliant ideas are. It was to survey political candidates for the 1972 federal election on their position on various issues of central concern to women and then to publicise the results.

American feminist activists Gloria Steinem and Patricia Carbine had surveyed the candidates for the forthcoming US presidential election and rated them according to their responses. After 23 years of Coalition government, momentum was building behind the Labor party and its dynamic leader, Gough Whitlam, and a Labor victory seemed within reach. So why not do the same here?

Compared with much of Women’s Liberation, WEL was a reformist project. It was not attempting to overthrow the patriarchy or hasten socialism, but to position women’s concerns high on the mainstream political agenda and to achieve practical reforms that would make a difference to women’s lives. Scores of women joined that first year. For many, it transformed their lives, and by the end of the year WEL had become an effective feminist lobby group.

When Faust started WEL she already had a decade of political activism behind her, in civil liberties and in the campaign to decriminalise abortion, which was illegal in all Australian states and territories. Like many other sexually active young women before the contraceptive pill was readily available, Faust had abortions, three in fact.

She had another reason to campaign for reform of the abortion laws. Her mother had died 12 hours after giving birth to Beatrice. She had been advised to have an abortion, but she was a Catholic and had refused. Her mother’s death was the defining fact of Faust’s life. The motherless child was sickly, and her childhood miserable. She believed that her father blamed her for his wife’s death and that she was unwanted and unloved.

The pioneering political psychologist, Harold Lasswell, said of political activists that they try to solve for others what they cannot solve for themselves. There was nothing Faust could do about her mother’s death, but she could agitate to ensure other children were not born unwanted, as she felt herself to be.

Repealing the laws that made abortion illegal, together with better sex education and easily available contraception, were her core political missions. She also agitated against the wowserish censorship regime limiting what adults could read and see in 1960s Australia, and publicly celebrated and privately enjoyed the pleasures of sex.

Faust grew to sexual maturity during the 1950s when a repressive public sexual morality was already fraying, both from the emergence of a confident youth culture and the decline in the moral authority of churches.

The advent of reliable contraception in the early 1960s turbo-charged this, removing the fear of pregnancy that had kept respectable unmarried people chaste. With the pill separating sex from reproduction, sex could become, as Faust put it, a recreational activity pursued for pleasure. The implications of this are still playing out, in the unstable co-existence in the contemporary moment of constrained public discourse with private sexual licence.

Faust was a passionate advocate of sex education so that men and women could better understand their own and each others’ sexuality. Contrary to many in the women’s movement, she did not believe that differences between men and women were only the result of social roles and conditioning. The social constructions of gender built on biological foundations, Faust believed. This meant if a woman was to live as an autonomous social being and to have sexual agency, she needed to understand her body, and how it differed from the bodies of other women and of men. For her and her mother, biology had been a sort of destiny, so when the women’s movement started mocking biology, she disagreed.

Faust was not just a political activist. She was also in her time a public intellectual, who wrote books, articles, op eds and reviews and commented frequently in the media. Because of her unusual openness about her sexuality, she became a go-to person as constraints loosened during the 1970s on the public discussion of all matters sexual.

Her sexual style, she claimed, was masculine, giving her an androgenous perspective that made her as sympathetic to men as to women, and which informed her provocative perspectives on pornography, rape and paedophilia. Describing herself as “a sceptical feminist”, she was wary of the misandry she believed informed feminist separatism and feared that second-wave feminism was succumbing to the same sexual puritanism that had weakened the first.

Many of her views will be challenging for contemporary readers. It’s hard for societies to get the balance right on sex. Too much repression is harmful as is too much licentiousness, the needs and desires of men and women need balancing, a range of individual differences accommodated, and violence and depravity confronted.

Whatever the prevailing norms, not everyone will be happy. We need to be able to talk about this, to discuss issues around age of consent, sexual assault, victim blaming, gender identity and more, without being told “you can’t say that”. Faust was never afraid to say what she thought. She was fearless.

Fearless Beatrice Faust (MUP), by Judith Brett, is available from April 23.

Judith Brett does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Provocative, progressive and fearless: why Beatrice Faust’s views still resonate in Australia – https://theconversation.com/provocative-progressive-and-fearless-why-beatrice-fausts-views-still-resonate-in-australia-252027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Fitz-Gibbon, Professor (Practice), Faculty of Business and Economics, Monash University

In the past week, at least seven women have been killed in Australia, allegedly by men. These deaths have occurred in different contexts – across state borders, communities and relationships. But are united by one truth: they are part of the ongoing national crisis of men’s violence against women and children.

While in the first four weeks of the election campaign there was silence from the major parties on this issue, now – with one week to go – both have released their commitments.

The Coalition announced its plan last night, following Labor’s promises earlier in the week.

Neither represent a commitment to ending gender-based violence. They both propose a patchwork of largely reactive initiatives. These will fail to deliver holistic reform to prevent violence and to intervene early enough to meaningfully reduce it.

What has Labor pledged?

Labor’s “commitment to women” announcement focuses on addressing financial abuse, a “fast growing and insidious form” of abuse. Key strategies proposed include:

• preventing perpetrators from using tax and corporate systems to accrue debts as a form of coercive control

• making perpetrators liable for debts incurred by the victim-survivor because of coercive control

• and exploring options to stop perpetrators accessing the superannuation of victim-survivors after death.

Labor has also pledged $8.6 million for perpetrator responses, including early interventions for young people.

What about the Coalition?

The Coalition’s approach is much more scatter gun, providing a list of disconnected strategies. It outlines 14 commitments.

The announcement promises to improve support by expanding the Safe Places Emergency Accommodation Program and the Leaving Violence Program (which provides one-off funding to help cover the cost of leaving an abusive relationship).

The Coalition will also increase crisis helpline support to ensure victim-survivors “have their calls answered and get the immediate assistance they require”.

This is much needed. Frontline services are consistently under-resourced and have been calling for at least $1 billion annually to meet demand.

The question of funding

The Coalition’s $90 million pledge, with no clear timeframe or detail on how it will be distributed, represents less than 10% of what frontline services say is needed every year.

Labor’s earlier announcement does not detail the funding commitment that will be allocated to their suite of proposed initiatives, other than to say $8.6 million will be provided for perpetrator interventions.

Neither party has committed to multiyear funding models for domestic, family and sexual violence frontline services. This is essential for workforce retention and to ensure consistent delivery of trauma-informed care.

We cannot criminalise our way out

Law and order responses dominate the Coalition’s announcement. These include implementation of a national domestic violence register and the development of uniform national knife laws.

Legal accountability is important and we need to improve information sharing across state and territory borders. But we cannot police or prosecute our way out of a problem rooted in structural inequality and social attitudes. It also fails to recognise that for many victim-survivors, the criminal legal system can be re-traumatising and does not meet their justice needs.

The Coalition also commits to introducing new offences for online coercive behaviour and spyware use. This would be a significant legal shift by introducing family and domestic violence offences and bail laws for certain abusive behaviours at the federal level.

It’s unclear how this would translate into state and territory criminal laws, or whether it is even necessary. All states and territories currently have laws prohibiting stalking and monitoring behaviours. Some states are in the early stages of developing or implementing coercive control offences.

The Coalition has also reiterated its 2023 promise to hold a Royal Commission into sexual abuse in Indigenous communities.

Indigenous scholars and organisations have previously rejected this proposal, particularly in light of the failure of the Northern Territory Intervention which required the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act to implement.

Evidence shows First Nations-led solutions should be prioritised over punitive approaches.

What’s missing?

The proposals from the two parties miss several critical areas.

There’s no mention of sexual violence. While it would be optimistic to hope this is yet to come, it’s disappointing to see it has fallen off the agenda.

The proposals don’t say anything about housing or recovery support beyond emergency accommodation. A lack of access to safe, long-term housing is one of the most significant barriers for victim-survivors escaping and recovering from violence. In the middle of a broader housing crisis, this is an essential component of any strategy.

Children remain largely invisible. While the Coalition’s announcement commits to improving child protection, it offers nothing on delivering age-appropriate crisis responses, and to support the recovery needs of children and young people as victim-survivors in their own right.

Read more:
Australia had a national reckoning over domestic violence, but where’s the focus this election?

Much has been written in recent weeks about the need to effectively engage men and boys, but they’re also barely mentioned by either party.

Finally, there is no discussion of the need for greater monitoring and evaluation efforts. We cannot fix what we do not measure.

Both parties’ announcements promise to build on the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children, which aspires to eliminate gender-based violence in one generation.

Nearly three years into the delivery of that plan, the persistent prevalence of this violence shows we must do more. We need visible, bipartisan leadership that treats this issue with the same gravity we afford to other national emergencies.

The National Sexual Assault, Family and Domestic Violence Counselling Line – 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732) – is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week for any Australian who has experienced, or is at risk of, family and domestic violence and/or sexual assault. The Men’s Referral Service (call 1300 766 491) offers advice and counselling to men looking to change their behaviour.

Kate has received funding for research on violence against women and children from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Kate receives funding from Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS), the South Australian government, Safe Steps, Australian Childhood Foundation, and 54 Reasons. This piece is written by Kate Fitz-Gibbon in her role at Monash University and Sequre Consulting, and is wholly independent of Kate Fitz-Gibbon’s role as chair of Respect Victoria and membership on the Victorian Children’s Council.

Hayley has received funding for research on violence against women and children and criminal justice-related issues from a range of federal and state government and non-government sources. Currently, Hayley receives funding from ANROWS, and the ACT Justice Reform Branch.

– ref. The major parties have announced their plans to address domestic and family violence. How do they stack up? – https://theconversation.com/the-major-parties-have-announced-their-plans-to-address-domestic-and-family-violence-how-do-they-stack-up-255127

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wayne Peake, Adjunct research fellow, School of Humanities and Communication Arts, Western Sydney University

The story goes that the late billionaire Australian media magnate Kerry Packer once visited a Las Vegas casino, where a Texan was bragging about his ranch and how many millions it was worth.

Packer produced a coin from his pocket and said: “I’ll toss you for it: my cash against your ranch”.

The Texan declined.

This story may or may not be true. But it is consistent with the old maxim that Australians love a punt and will bet on just about anything, even on two flies crawling up a wall (which one will fly off first?).

A rich history

Australians are the biggest (or worst) gamblers in the world per capita. How did it come to this?

By the 1830s, following European settlement in Australia, there was a steady stream of migrants who were taking the ultimate gamble – resettling on the other side of the world.

The discovery of gold in the 1850s then encouraged a torrent of speculators often armed with no more than a shovel and a wheelbarrow.

Most remained insolvent but some found bonanzas. Gold-rich towns, Melbourne in particular, developed rapidly. Modern enclosed racecourses soon followed.

At first, gambling was restricted to side bets between the horses’ connections.

That changed in 1882 when Englishman Robert Sievier visited Australia. He was the first bookmaker to stand on a regular pitch, accept cash bets and pay winners after each race.

Sievier soon had numerous imitators on course – bookmakers registered with race clubs, betting on races like the Melbourne Cup, which by the 1890s attracted 100,000-plus racegoers.

Some fun on the front line

People bet off-course too – in barber shops and saloons, not only on the races but rowing events, cycling and “pedestrianism” (foot races).

Despite state betting acts passed in 1906 intended to restrict gambling, by the first world war, capital cities were dotted with racecourses.

Male racegoers were encouraged to “play up and play the game” – as the famous 1892 imperialist poem Vitai Lampada by Henry Newbolt urged – and enlist in the defence forces.

When their enthusiasm curbed in 1917 after causalities at the front seeped back, governments reduced the number of race meetings but this caused crowds at those remaining to treble.

Meanwhile, at the front lines, Australian soldiers adopted the egalitarian coin-toss game of two-up: a game where coins are spun in the air and bets are laid on whether heads or tails are facing up once they settle on the ground.

Two-up remains a facet of the Australian psyche today – illegal, although authorities turn a blind eye on Anzac Day, supposedly out of respect for returned soldiers.

This concession reflects the connection in Australia between mateship, the “Anzac legend”, sport and gambling.

The pokie problem

After the first world war, racecourse attendances grew even larger.

The 1929 Depression eroded them but the emergence of racing radio broadcasts and the spread of the telephone network fed a regrowth in illegal off-course betting, especially in New South Wales.

That state was also the scene of the next big, and perhaps most significant, development in gambling in Australia: the legalisation of poker machines in 1956.

“The pokies” were originally restricted to registered clubs: mostly returned servicemen clubs, but in 1997, the NSW Labor government allowed them into hotels, where they soon rendered the less exciting “dancing joker” card machines extinct.

The other states long resisted the temptation to legalise pokies. As a result, coaches loaded with would-be players from Victoria visited clubs at New South Wales border towns such as Corowa.

The pokies were finally legalised in Victoria in 1991, later in other states. In Western Australia they remain legal in casinos only.

Poker machines are widely regarded as a more insidious and dangerous form of gambling – in most other countries they are restricted to casinos.

Since then, pokies have become a major part of Australia’s gambling landscape. In fact:

• Australia has less than 1% of the world’s population but 18% of its poker machines.
• Australians are the world’s biggest gambling losers per capita, gambling away at least $25 billion a year, and possibly even $31.5 billion.

The options are endless

Poker machines reign as the dominant form of gambling in Australia, but there are many more options: lotteries and instant lotteries (“scratchies”), Keno and sports betting, which is fast replacing horseracing as the main business of the so-called corporate bookmakers that have emerged in the past 25 years.

As technology continues to advance, online gambling – which is difficult to regulate and control – might be the biggest ongoing threat to gamblers.

Wayne Peake does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The biggest losers: how Australians became the world’s most enthusiastic gamblers – https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-losers-how-australians-became-the-worlds-most-enthusiastic-gamblers-252496

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nazia Pathan, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher, Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University

If there’s a disease that seems to run in your family, if you’ve had a negative reaction to a drug or wondered why a standard treatment didn’t work on you, the answers may lie in your genes.

The unique sequence of DNA that acts as a blueprint for building and maintaining your body often plays a major role in shaping your predisposition to diseases and reactions to drugs.

Genes in the DNA make proteins, which can act as biomarkers or influence other types of biomarkers. Biomarkers are molecules in the body that help measure health conditions, such as those detected in blood or urine tests.

Blood glucose, for example, is a biomarker for diabetes, cholesterol levels can be biomarkers for heart diseases and albumin is a protein used to assess kidney and liver functions.

Tailoring treatments

By understanding a patient’s unique genetic profile, biomarker readings and lifestyle information, doctors could tailor the most effective and safest treatments for that individual.

Genetics offer the opportunity for individualized health care that can improve patient outcomes, save lives and alleviate strain on the health-care system.

This is the promise of personalized medicine, which is already making a difference in areas such as cardiovascular diseases, cancer, mental health and rare diseases.

The question is, are we prepared to seize this golden opportunity in Canada?

Genetic testing and data

Canadians are not averse to genetic testing. By 2018, a survey by Abacus Data showed around 11 per cent of Canadian adults had used direct-to-consumer genetic testing and analysis kits, and 60 per cent were open to ordering a test.

This level of interest highlights a general acceptance of and readiness for genetic advancements in health care, which is encouraging, since we need much more reliable, population-level genetic information to make the most of this opportunity.

Current genetic data is either scattered across relatively small, fragmented groups, which is severely limiting from a broader research perspective, or held by private companies. These companies have varying regulatory standards, raising concerns about privacy and data security, especially if a company is financially unstable or ceases to exist. This recently occurred when genetic testing company 23andMe filed for bankruptcy.

Read more:
With 23andMe filing for bankruptcy, what happens to consumers’ genetic data?

The better model is publicly managed biobanks, which prioritize broad societal health over profit and offer stronger data protection through robust regulation of access, storage and usage. Strict oversight ensures the protection of individual privacy while promoting transparency.

The potential of biobanks

In this age of big data, biobanks have become some of the most transformative tools in medical research, enabling scientists to study the relationships between genes, health and disease on an unprecedented scale.

This is possible because of technological advancements that allow large-scale genetic and biomarker testing, the adoption of cloud-based servers, and improvements in statistical modelling, machine learning and artificial intelligence.

Establishing a biobank begins with collecting small amounts (five to 10 millilitres) of blood, saliva or tissue from consenting participants in the presence of health experts.

Biobanks use next-generation sequencers to perform the genetic sequences at high speed, while the latest proteomics platforms enable measurement of thousands different biomarkers from a very small amount of blood. The resulting genetic and biomarker profiles are curated and made accessible through platforms like a national library.

Countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States are paving the way with national efforts such as the UK Biobank and the All of Us Research Program.

The British Biobank houses genetic and health data from more than 500,000 participants. Similarly, the U.S. program aims to enrol more than one million participants.

Genomics in Canada

As a genetic epidemiologist, I have had the opportunity to identify several potential genetic targets by using these treasure troves of information.

The problem is that we don’t yet have a ready way of knowing if the results are directly applicable to the Canadian population.

This is about to change. Genome Canada has launched the Canadian Precision Health Initiative to sequence the genomes of at least 100,000 Canadians.

A Pan-Canadian Genome Library (PCGL) is also in the works to harmonize genetic data produced across Canada. It aims to capture, store and provide access to Canadian genomic data in a secure and ethical manner. Although this work is in the developmental phase, and the target population size remains unclear, these efforts are significant.

These visions are closer to becoming a reality with the recent announcement of a $200 million investment in the Canadian Precision Health initiative. This is in addition to the more than $1 billion previously invested in health genomics research projects.

These funds will support Canada’s Genomic centres, the PCGL, and enhance the translation of genomics into real-world applications, boosting the development of personalized medicine and advanced diagnostics to treat diseases.

A potential model for the world

Canada, with its uniquely diverse population, has a rare opportunity to lead the way in equitable, multi-ethnic genetic research that would address current biases that predominantly focus on individuals with European ancestry.

This would ensure that everyone in Canada, including Indigenous communities, can benefit from this health-care revolution in an equitable, ethical and safe manner that balances privacy with the opportunities for groundbreaking research.

With public trust and robust oversight, and making population-level data internationally accessible, Canada’s biobank initiative could become a model for the world in the golden era of personalized medicine.

Nazia Pathan, PhD does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. A golden era for personalized medicine is approaching, but are we ready? – https://theconversation.com/a-golden-era-for-personalized-medicine-is-approaching-but-are-we-ready-250336

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Edward Yiu, Associate Professor, School of Business, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

New Zealand’s unaffordable housing market has left many low and middle-income families reliant on the accommodation supplement to cover rent and mortgage payments.

But our new research has found the scheme, which costs the government almost NZ$5 billion a year, might not be an effective tool in addressing the country’s housing affordability crisis.

Introduced in 1993, the accommodation supplement is a weekly, means-tested payment designed to subsidise part of a household’s rent or mortgage. The supplement is calculated independently of actual rent or mortgage payments.

But our study looking at data from Auckland between 2019 and 2023 found accommodation supplement rental subsidies were not delivering meaningful improvements in affordability for renters. Subsidies used to support mortgage payments, however, appeared to be more effective in offering relief to low-income households wanting stable and affordable housing.

Our results raise questions about whether the current policy of subsidising private rentals is working to address housing affordability in New Zealand.

Renters left behind

Our study compared the proportion of household disposable income spent on rent between households receiving the supplement versus those in the same income group who did not receive it.

The results revealed a striking gap.

In 2023 renters in the middle-income bracket who received the accommodation supplement were spending, on average, 35.6% of their income (including the supplement) on rent. Similar households without the subsidy spent 25.85% of their income on rent. This suggests the support is not significantly narrowing the affordability gap between subsidised and unsubsidised renters.

This study also picked up potential signs of landlords inflating the rents for tenants receiving subsidies. This is known as “subsidy capturing”. On average, middle-income tenants receiving the accommodation supplement paid NZ$539.40 per week in rent in 2023. Non-recipients paid $502.90. That’s a 7.3% difference.

Further research is needed to determine whether this discrepancy is due to rent inflation or differences in housing quality. But the finding aligns with international studies showing that subsidies can unintentionally drive up market rents.

If landlords are capturing part of the subsidy by increasing rents, then the benefit meant for vulnerable tenants is being diluted.

Greater promise with mortgage support

Our data suggests mortgage support seems to level the playing field more effectively than rental assistance. The mortgage-to-income ratio for subsidised households stood at 25.55% and 29.95% in 2022 and 2023, respectively (income includes the supplement). This closely matches the 26.6% and 27.5% recorded for non-subsidised households in the same income group.

One reason for the difference in the effectiveness of the supplement is that homeowners are typically required to contribute more upfront – a deposit – giving them a greater financial stake in their housing. This commitment may encourage better financial decisions and housing choices. It may also offer long-term benefits such as asset building and housing stability.

Rental subsidies are essential for immediate relief, especially in emergencies or periods of transition. But our research calls into question their effectiveness in enhancing affordability. More targeted support for low-income homeowners could offer a more sustainable path forward.

Intentions must match results

The accommodation is undoubtedly grounded in good intentions. But considering how much of the national budget is being spent on housing-related welfare, it is essential the programmes deliver the best possible results for taxpayers.

Measuring effectiveness is not about questioning the intent but about ensuring public resources truly achieve meaningful objectives.

Simply increasing funding for subsidies is unlikely to solve the problem. As New Zealand confronts an ongoing housing affordability crisis, this study adds to growing evidence that policy effectiveness – not just how much is spent – is what truly matters.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The billions spent on NZ’s accommodation supplement is failing to make rent affordable – so what will? – https://theconversation.com/the-billions-spent-on-nzs-accommodation-supplement-is-failing-to-make-rent-affordable-so-what-will-254779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This election has been lacklustre, without the touch of excitement of some past campaigns. Through the decades, campaigning has changed dramatically, adopting new techniques and technologies. This time, we’ve seen politicians try to jump onto viral podcasts.

To discuss old and new campaigning, we’re joined by professor of history at the Australian National University, Frank Bongiorno.

Many decades ago, campaigns were marked by lots of public meetings, and with them came hecklers. Bongiorno says politicians

needed to be able to command an audience and to deal with interjectors in a big public meeting. Radio was really coming into its own.

Very famously – not in a political campaign and not as prime minister – but Menzies made a number of broadcasts that are still remembered. [That was] back in the earlier part of the 1940s, when he was out of government. The most famous of which is the “Forgotten People” broadcast in 1942.

Over time, campaigns have focused more on the leaders, in the style of the United States.

[It’s] another aspect perhaps of the Americanisation and presidentialisation of our political system, that focus on party leaders in that kind of way. The 1984 debate was between Bob Hawke as prime minister and Andrew Peacock. I think many people thought that Peacock actually got the better of Hawke on that occasion and that was really, in some ways, the assessment of the whole campaign.

…That does speak to the American influence in particular. Very famously of course there was the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy, that is such an important part of the collective memory of Kennedy’s success in that election in 1960.

Do debates still have any impact on campaigns? Bongiorno says “they have become something that I think a lot of people shun.”

They do seem rather neutral affairs, in which the pundits’ ideas about who won don’t seem to probably matter very much to most voters.

On the move from traditional media sources to an online campaign, Bongiorno says,

A lot of the campaign now is fought online. And I guess that trend began really as long ago as the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the parties would maintain campaign websites. It seems so long ago and so primitive, compared to where we are now.

And social media took off from about the middle of the first decade of this century. Facebook and YouTube came into their own in 2007. Twitter, now called X, in 2010… The use of memes really took off about 2019. And I think TikTok, which is often particularly used by younger people, from about 2022.

He says scare campaigns have become harder to report on or rebut, due to more targeted online campaigns and advertising.

Everything depends on your algorithm. The election campaign that I’m seeing when I go into my feed for X or for Facebook will be quite different to my next door neighbour’s, for instance, who could have a totally different sense of what’s happening in the campaign, what are the issues that matter, where the sort of balance of public opinion is.

On this year’s record start to pre-poll voting, Bongiorno says it makes timing more important than ever.

It means that whatever the parties are saying now, whatever candidates are saying and doing in the media over the next little while, is going to have no impact on anyone who’s already voted. So it can only be those who are still to vote.

It probably makes leaving the release of policy – and perhaps even costings as well – to the last minute a riskier venture, because if you do have goodies on offer, they’re going to miss anyone who has already voted.

It does mean that the parties need to be pretty careful in how they’re timing the release of particular aspects of their policy offerings.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: historian Frank Bongiorno on dramatic shifts in how elections are fought and won – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-historian-frank-bongiorno-on-dramatic-shifts-in-how-elections-are-fought-and-won-255113

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

• national offtake agreements

• selective stockpiling

The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

“The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

“The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

“The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

“The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

“It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

“While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

• national offtake agreements

• selective stockpiling

The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

“The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

“The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

“The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

“The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

“It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

“While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion in plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-in-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)

Urban flooding is a major problem in the global south. In west and central Africa, more than 4 million people were affected by flooding in 2024. In Ghana, cities suffer damage from flooding every year.

Ghana’s president, John Dramani Mahama, has established a task force to find ways of improving flood resilience in the country. This is partly driven by an increase in flooding incidents in cities such as Accra and Kumasi in the last decade.

We are urban planning and sustainability scholars. In a recent paper we analysed whether flooding in Accra, Ghana’s capital, was caused by climate change or poor land use planning.

We conclude from our analysis that flooding is caused by poor and uncoordinated land use planning rather than climate change. We recommend that the physical planning department and other regulatory agencies are equipped to ensure the effective enforcement the relevant land use regulations.

Mixed push factors

The Accra metropolitan area is one of the 29 administrative units of Ghana’s Greater Accra region. It is the most populous region in Ghana, with over five million residents, according to the 2021 Housing and Population Census.

We interviewed 100 households living in areas such as Kaneshie, Adabraka and Kwame Nkrumah Circle. These areas experience a high incidence of floods. Representatives of agencies such as the Physical Planning Department of the Accra Metropolitan Assembly, the National Disaster Management Organisation and the Environmental Protection Agency were interviewed too, about:

• the nature and areas most prone to flooding in the study area

• the frequency of flooding

• land use planning and regulations and their influence on flooding.

About 40% of the people we interviewed attributed flooding to both weak enforcement of land use regulation and changes in rainfall patterns. Most of the households (52%) said floods in Accra were the result of weak enforcement of land use regulations, while 8% blamed changes in land use regulations.

We also analysed recorded data on flood incidence and rainfall. We found no correlation between increased rainfall and flooding. For example in 2017 there was a decrease in rainfall, but an increase in flooding.

This finding points to the fact that rainfall isn’t the only factor contributing to flooding in the city.

The agencies and city residents reported that between 2008 and 2018, they could see that more people were encroaching on the city’s wetlands by building homes and commercial infrastructure. This has changed the natural flow of water bodies. The Greater Accra Metropolitan and its environs has major wetlands such as Densu Delta, Sakumo Lagoon and Songor Lagoon.

Interview respondents noted that the siting of unauthorised buildings and the encroachment on buffer zones of water bodies in the city could have been averted. They blamed political interference in the enforcement of land use regulation. The government makes the situation worse in two ways, they said:

• planning standards and regulations are neglected in the development process. The processes involved in acquiring development permits are cumbersome and expensive, so people go ahead and develop without permits.

• regulatory institutions and authorities are ineffective. This is clear from the fact that planning happens chaotically. No attention is given to the ecological infrastructure that’s needed.

The way forward

We conclude that land use malpractices remain the dominant causes of flooding in Accra. They include:

• poor disposal of solid waste, which eventually blocks drains and results in water overflow during heavy rains

• building on wetlands as a result of non-compliance or non-enforcement of land use regulations.

There is an urgent need for Ghana’s cities to adopt best practices in waste management. These include recycling of plastic waste and composting for urban agriculture. An environmental excise tax was introduced in 2011 to fund plastic waste recycling and support waste management agencies.

The increasing encroachment on wetlands should be addressed through the strict enforcement of buffer regulations. Planning authorities and the judiciary can collaborate on this. The city must also encourage green infrastructure, like rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavement, street trees and rain harvesting systems.
Research has shown these to be environmentally sustainable and cost-effective approaches to managing storm water.

Another suggested approach is the introduction of the polluter pays principle in city management. This is a system where city residents who are involved in the pollution of the environment are made to pay for the cost of mitigating the impact. Residents who dispose of waste indiscriminately and encroach on wetlands would be made to pay for the cost of the environmental degradation. Cities such as Barcelona and Helsinki have applied this principle in the management of their industrial discharge and contaminated waste.

Finally, there should be incentives for city residents to promote environmental sustainability. For example, a deposit refund system has been introduced in several states in the US and Australia. In this system, consumers are made to pay a deposit after purchasing items that can be recycled, such as plastic bottles, and the deposit is reimbursed to the consumer after the return of the empty bottles to a retail store.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Flooding incidents in Ghana’s capital are on the rise. Researchers chase the cause – https://theconversation.com/flooding-incidents-in-ghanas-capital-are-on-the-rise-researchers-chase-the-cause-254000

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University

Just as voting has begun in this year’s federal election, the Coalition has released its long-awaited defence policy platform. The main focus, as expected, is a boost in defence spending to 3% of Australia’s GDP within the next decade.

If elected, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton says a Coalition government will spend A$21 billion over the next five years to bring defence spending to 2.5% of GDP. It would aim to reach 3% five years after that.

This sounds impressive, but as shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie notes, this isn’t a huge increase, given it’s over many years.

In dry fiscal planning terms, Labor’s defence spending plan would amount to 2.23% of GDP in budget year 2028–29, while the Coalition’s plan would be expected to reach around 2.4% by that time.

While the Coalition’s costings are yet to come, its plan is arguably affordable – if need be through deficit financing.

What’s in the Coalition plan?

The Coalition’s extra money would go to numerous capabilities:

• purchasing 28 extra F-35 joint strike fighter jets from the United States

• accelerating the infrastructure and shipyard building capacity in Western Australia (some in Hastie’s electorate) to support the AUKUS submarine plan

• improving Australian Defence Force (ADF) recruitment and retention

• and boosting “sustainment” (that is, maintenance of military equipment, weaponry and systems and personnel training).

Hastie is particularly enthusiastic about improving the Australian defence industrial base, which he says involves ramping up purchases of defence equipment from small and medium-size enterprises.

There is some logic to this. In the past few years, some spending on new acquisitions has been shifted to sustainment. This was necessary, as the long-term defence plan when Labor came to power in 2022 did not accurately estimate how much money would be needed for the new equipment then entering service.

This is not unusual. There is always optimism within the Department of Defence that new equipment will be cheaper to operate than it actually turns out to be.

Given significant money has already been moved to sustainment under Labor defence budgets over the past few years, it’s plausible we don’t actually need as much money for this as the Coalition asserts.

This might be fortunate as the F-35 purchase is likely to be considerably more than the $3 billion the Coalition touted last month, given inflation and issues with the program in the US.

Problems with the plan

The biggest problem with Dutton’s plan is the same one faced by both the Morrison and Albanese governments. Strong rhetoric is consistently at odds with slow progress on defence force modernisation. The Coalition policy continues this bipartisan tradition.

Hastie repeated several times at his news conference with Dutton in Perth that the country faces the “most dangerous strategic circumstances since the second world war”.

Yet, this sense of urgency is not reflected in the extra $21 billion in spending the Coalition is proposing. The F-35 fighter jets, the major centrepiece of the plan, are unlikely to be in service until the first half of the 2030s.

Similarly, the naval shipbuilding (which is necessary and already in train) also won’t begin to deliver greater capacity until well into the next decade.

The only high-priority item outlined by the Coalition appears to be accelerating spending on the infrastructure needed to base US and UK nuclear attack submarines in Western Australia from 2027.

Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that a drive through the area where this infrastructure is being built would reveal few signs of any progress, particularly when it comes to housing.

This comment highlights a policy incoherence problem for both parties. Accelerating the construction of defence infrastructure will drag tradies away from building homes for other Australians – and contribute to construction cost increases.

The Coalition’s planned cuts in skilled worker migration will further exacerbate this problem.

This throws up another issue. The Coalition has criticised Labor for cutting or delaying defence equipment projects costing some $80 billion while in government, yet it has offered no plans to return these specific projects to the defence budget.

As Hastie observed, these cuts and delays were, in part, to land-force capabilities, such as the infantry fighting vehicle program. A shift to a more maritime focus and away from equipment better suited to wars in the Middle East is reasonable, given the stress both parties have placed on China’s naval buildup.

Little to feel inspired about

Interestingly, Hastie said on Radio National Breakfast that AUKUS is “a structural imposition” the current defence budget can’t meet.

This suggests that when the AUKUS deal was agreed to under former Prime Minster Scott Morrison, there was inadequate funding for the program and it is now consuming other defence acquisition plans.

Given this, the Coalition’s plans to grow defence spending to 3% of GDP in ten years may be prudent – and necessary – mainly to meet the looming AUKUS funding shortfalls. This again may be problem for both parties, given their strident support for AUKUS at seemingly any cost.

Hastie is keen to increase Australian self-reliance, in part, through building up the Australian defence industry.

However, the Coalition plan doesn’t offer many specifics on how Australian industry will benefit. Instead of buying yet more American-built F-35s, for instance, the Coalition could have given thought to buying the innovative Ghost Bat uncrewed air vehicles made in Queensland.

This shortcoming highlights the biggest disappointment with the Coalition plan. It is “steady as she goes” approach in a world of increasing volatility.

There really needs to be some fresh thinking on defence, particularly given the growing doubts about the Trump administration’s stance on its security alliances. Australia may need to be more self-reliant as Hastie claims, but this policy platform – as well as Labor’s – won’t achieve this possibility.

The reason the Coalition is emphasising the 3% of GDP figure is that there are no new ideas. A great opportunity for an imaginative recasting of Australian defence has been missed.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

Peter Layton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australia needs bold ideas on defence. The Coalition’s increased spending plan falls disappointingly short – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-bold-ideas-on-defence-the-coalitions-increased-spending-plan-falls-disappointingly-short-255106

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar of Civil Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury

As New Zealanders clean up after ex-Cyclone Tam which left thousands without power and communities once again facing flooding, it’s tempting to seek immediate solutions.

However, after the cleanup and initial recovery, careful planning is essential.

Research shows that following disasters, communities often demand visible action that appears decisive. Yet, these reactions can create more problems than they solve.

When high-impact weather events drive long-term policy decisions, we risk implementing changes that seem protective but actually increase the risk of future disasters or misallocate limited resources.

What New Zealand needs isn’t knee-jerk actions but thoughtful planning that prepares communities before the next storms strike. Risk assessments paired with adaptive planning offer a path forward to build resilience step by step.

Planning ahead with multiple options

The good news is that many councils in New Zealand have begun this process and communities across the country are due to receive climate change risk assessments. These aren’t just technical documents showing hazard areas – they are tools that put power in the hands of communities.

When communities have access to good information about which neighbourhoods, roads and infrastructure face potential risks, they can prioritise investments in protection, modify building practices where needed and, in some cases, plan for different futures. This knowledge creates options rather than fear.

A risk assessment is merely the first step. Adaptation plans that translate knowledge into action are the next, but the Climate Change Commission recently confirmed there is a gap, concluding that:

New Zealand is not adapting to climate change fast enough.

For many New Zealanders already experiencing “rain anxiety” with each approaching storm, simply naming the danger without offering a path forward isn’t enough. This is where adaptive planning becomes essential.

Adaptive planning isn’t about abandoning coastal towns tomorrow or spending billions on sea walls today. It is about having a plan A, B and C ready if or when nature forces our hand. Rather than demanding immediate, potentially costly actions, adaptive planning provides a roadmap with multiple pathways that adjust as climate conditions evolve. This is how we best manage complex risk.

Think of it as setting up trip wires: when water reaches certain levels or storms hit certain frequencies, we already know our next move. This approach acknowledges the deep uncertainty of climate change while still providing communities with clarity about what happens next.

Importantly, it builds in community consultation at each decision point, ensuring solutions reflect local values and priorities.

Success stories

Several New Zealand communities are already demonstrating how this approach works. Christchurch recently approved an adaptation strategy for Whakaraupō Lyttelton Harbour with clear pathways based on trigger points rather than fixed timelines.

In South Dunedin, where half of the city’s buildings currently face flood risks which are expected to worsen in coming decades, the city council has paired its risk assessment with seven potential adaptation futures, ranging from status quo to large-scale retreat. Rather than imposing solutions, they’re consulting residents about what they want for their neighbourhoods.

Similarly forward-thinking, Buller District Council has developed a master plan that includes potentially relocating parts of Westport in the future. It’s a bold strategy that acknowledges reality rather than clinging to false security.

Status quo feels safer than adaptation

These approaches aren’t without controversy. At recent public meetings in Buller, some residents voiced understandable concerns about property values and community disruption. These reactions reflect the very real emotional and financial stakes for people whose homes are affected.

Yet the alternative – continuing with the status quo – means flood victims are offered only the option to invest their insurance money wherever they like. This assumes insurance remains available, which is a misguided assumption as insurance retreat from climate-vulnerable properties accelerates.

However, while local councils are on the front lines of adaptation planning, they’re being asked to make transformational decisions without adequate central government support. A recent Parliamentary select committee report failed to clarify who should pay for adaptation measures, despite acknowledging significant risks.

Parliament continues to avoid the difficult questions, kicking the can further down the road while communities such as South Dunedin and Westport face immediate threats.

Local councils need more than vague guidelines. They need clear direction on funding responsibilities, legislative powers and technical support. Without this support, even the most detailed risk assessments become exercises in documenting vulnerability rather than building resilience.

Instead of demanding short-term fixes, residents should expect their councils to engage with these complex challenges. The best climate preparation isn’t about predicting exactly what will happen in 2100 or avoiding disaster. It is about building more resilient, cohesive communities that are prepared for whatever our changing climate brings.

Tom Logan is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow and the chief technical officer of Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and EU Horizons on risk assessment. He is affiliated with the International Society for Risk Analysis.

– ref. Rather than short-term fixes, communities need flexible plans to prepare for a range of likely climate impacts – https://theconversation.com/rather-than-short-term-fixes-communities-need-flexible-plans-to-prepare-for-a-range-of-likely-climate-impacts-254698

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

Recent royal commissions and inquiries into Crown and Star casino groups attracted much media attention. Most of this was focused on money laundering and other illegalities.

The Victorian royal commission found widespread evidence that Crown also took advantage of vulnerable people.

The regulatory framework that in large part allows this to occur is known as “responsible gambling”.

Read more:
Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

What is ‘responsible gambling’?

Gambling operators usually adhere to a system of purported harm minimisation known as responsible gambling.

In practice, this requires gambling operators to adopt and supposedly implement a “responsible gambling code of practice”.

This is supposed to protect people from experiencing gambling harm. Crown and Star, like other gambling venues, are required to adopt such codes.

Royal Commissioner Ray Finkelstein, overseeing the Victorian Crown inquiry, was scathing in his assessment of Crown’s implementation:

Crown Melbourne had for years held itself out as having a world’s best approach to problem gambling. Nothing can be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, Finkelstein’ comments about Crown could readily be made about most other gambling operators.

How it all began

The responsible gambling framework was developed by gambling operators as a way of deflecting attention from the serious harm of gambling.

The document that arguably consolidated this was prepared in 2004 by a group of gambling researchers gathered, naturally, in Reno, Nevada (close to Las Vegas, the spiritual home of gambling excesses).

This document argued the choice to gamble should be left to people and no external organisation should interfere with this.

Now, responsible gambling is cemented in law, regulation, and practice. It is the overwhelming frame for gambling operators, governments and regulators to conceal gambling’s downside.

Stacking the odds

Responsible gambling depicts gambling harm as an issue for a small minority of people: so-called problem gamblers.

So from this perspective, any issues with gambling are issues with people.

But little if any attention is devoted to the environment in which gambling is available. Often, even less is devoted to examining the nature of gambling products.

When it comes to wagering marketing, the Australian gambling ecosystem has argued very effectively to forestall prohibition or further regulation in recent years.

The far-reaching power of this conglomeration of self-interested actors is hard to overestimate.

Read more:
Will the government’s online gambling advertising legislation ever eventuate? Don’t bet on it

At venue level, responsible gambling interventions required include signage, referral to counselling and mottos such as “gamble responsibly”.

With few exceptions, little of this is evidence based. Almost none of it is effective.

Codes of conduct, for example, argue it is possible to intervene at a venue when a gambler shows signs of distress, or has a gambling disorder. While this is theoretically possible, the problem is to do so would rob venue operators of their most lucrative customers.

The available evidence indicates such interventions are extremely rare, or nonexistent.

Another major element is self-exclusion: an opportunity for people (or in some states their relatives) to ban themselves from gambling at particular venues.

This is, again, fine in theory. But it has generally been poorly enforced at “bricks and mortar” venues.

There are two fundamental issues with this approach:

• those who self-exclude are very much in the minority of those with gambling problems
• self-exclusion is generally undertaken only by those who are at rock-bottom. It is not a preventive approach.

The other major intervention in the responsible gambling coda is treatment.

Gambling treatment services are available and free via Gamblers Help but fewer than 10% of those who might benefit from treatment actually seek it.

Unfortunately, attrition rates for counselling are high, so both the lack of help-seeking and the attrition rates when help is sought are at least partially attributable to another side effect of the responsible gambling mantra: shame and stigma, which are commonly reported by those struggling with gambling disorders.

The blame game

Responsible gambling effectively blames people for getting into trouble.

It argues problem gamblers are far outnumbered by “responsible gamblers”, and deflects attention away from the highly addictive nature of many gambling products.

It largely absolves operators of responsibility, while maintaining their revenues and stigmatising those who bear the consequences.

As it does all this, it also provides a smokescreen of concern, a suggestion that gambling operators and governments care about gambling harm.

Ideas for the future

The best way to curb gambling harm is to view it as a public health problem.

Public health is generally focused on prevention (think vaccines and clean water). At this stage, the most likely effective preventive intervention is what is known as pre-commitment, which uses technology to allow people to determine the amount of money they want to gamble.

High-intensity gambling products rely on people becoming highly immersed in the product. Gamblers call this “the zone” – which limits or negates a person’s ability to make rational decisions.

But pre-commitment systems allow this choice to be made outside of “the zone”.

Unsurprisingly, few gambling operators support such a solution, even though these systems are now commonplace in many European countries.

Pre-commitment and cashless systems are now required for casinos in NSW and Victoria, and shortly in Queensland, as recommended by the Crown and Star inquiries.

These are welcome steps but much more is needed.

A long overdue change

Responsible gambling has allowed gambling operators to self-regulate and blame people for harmful gambling practices.

It has made gambling businesses – casinos, wagering companies, pokie pubs and clubs – extraordinary profitable. But this has come at considerable cost to hundreds of thousands of Australians, and their families and friends.

Ditching the responsible gambling mantra is long overdue. Along with effective interventions to prevent harm, doing so will dramatically reduce the damage that gambling does.

Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

– ref. The ‘responsible gambling’ mantra does nothing to prevent harm. It probably makes things worse – https://theconversation.com/the-responsible-gambling-mantra-does-nothing-to-prevent-harm-it-probably-makes-things-worse-251487

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Intifar Chowdhury, Lecturer in Government, Flinders University

The centre of gravity of Australian politics has shifted. Millennials and Gen Z voters, now comprising 47% of the electorate, have taken over as the dominant voting bloc.

But this generational shift isn’t just about numerical dominance. It’s also about political unpredictability.

While the youth have progressive leanings, they aren’t neatly aligned with Labor. The Greens are gaining ground and there are signs of a subset of younger men drifting right.

This makes them both a decisive and volatile force. So how might they vote?

The climbing Greens vote

According to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), youth enrolment (18–24-year-olds) at the end of March 2025 stood at 90.4%. This surpasses the national youth enrolment rate target of 87%.

Further analysis of enrolment data shows electorates with the highest proportion of voters under 30 saw unprecedented support for the Greens in 2022, with the party topping the vote share in four of the youngest seats.

Elsewhere, electorates with a high youth vote became battlegrounds, with Labor facing its fiercest competition not from the Liberals, but from the Greens.

Take Canberra, for example. A historically safe Labor seat was a comfortable Labor retain, but Greens’ primary vote reached nearly 25%, pushing the Liberals out of the two party-preferred calculations entirely.

This year, the main contest for the youth vote will likely be between Labor and the Greens.

Capturing young hearts and minds

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese knows how important these voters are. In a bid to retain the youth vote, he is already sweetening the deal for them, dangling higher education reforms like election cookies.

If re-elected, Labor promises a 20% cut to student loan debt by June 1. The government also plans a higher income threshold before repayments begin, and an expansion of fee-free TAFE places to 100,000 per year from 2027.

These proposals have received strong support from young people – even among Coalition voters.

Read more:
Every generation thinks they had it the toughest, but for Gen Z, they’re probably right

This underscores the significance of youth issues in shaping their political behaviour. Young Australians are issue-based voters, with housing affordability, employment, and climate change topping their concerns, according to the 2024 Australian Youth Barometer.

They’re acutely aware of intergenerational inequality. They’re paying more tax than their parents did, while facing skyrocketing housing, education, and living costs. Financial anxiety runs deep, with 62% believing they’ll be worse off than their parents.

Yet, they see lack of sincere government action to address their struggles.

Not doing enough

Take housing affordability – a red-hot issue in the past three years. A bitter parliamentary standoff last year saw Labor and the Greens locked in negotiations over housing policy.

The Greens criticised the government’s Build to Rent and Help to Buy schemes, calling for tougher reforms. They wanted rent caps, the winding back negative gearing and phasing out $176 billion in tax breaks for property investors.

Such parliamentary gridlocks are unsavoury to voters, but the rent cap debate could have given the Greens an edge among young people, most of whom are renters.

Youth trust in the Albanese government has slipped since 2022, according to the first wave of the ANU 2025 Election Monitoring Survey. Perceptions of politicking over important issues like housing could be part of the reason why.

Divided by gender

Another fault line in the youth vote is the gender divide.

There are signs of a right-wing shift among young men, much like in Donald Trump’s America. According to The Australian Financial Review/Freshwater Strategy poll in November 2024, 37% of men aged 18–34 back opposition leader Dutton, compared to just 27% of women.

Pollsters point to young, non-university educated voters in the outer suburbs and regions as potential disruptors. They’re volatile, disillusioned and more likely to vote against a system they feel has failed them.

This trend is harder to spot in aggregate data, likely due to compulsory voting, but studies suggest a subset of men with economic grievances – particularly blue-collar workers – are drawn to anti-government rhetoric and the discourse of white male victimhood.

Many express nostalgia for traditional masculinity and feel alienated by progressive social shifts. Such a perception leads to a “backlash” against these changes.

This resentment plays out well online. Trump, for example, has mobilised young men by mastering direct communication through digital media and podcasts, and Dutton seems to be taking notes.

So a lot hinges on the online battleground. It’s about reaching all types of young voters with relatable, political messaging.

The days of one-size-fits-all political advertising are over. Younger voters consume media differently, making political messaging more about influencers than traditional advertising.

Major parties need to step up their game in digital-first platforms, moving beyond mere presence on social media to crafting compelling, digital-first content.

Grassroots and community-driven campaigning, both online and on the ground, can bridge the disconnect. The Greens’ success in Brisbane proved this, with young, personable candidates engaging directly.

Meanwhile, the establishment parties are lacking young, relatable leaders who can tell stories that resonate.

Intifar Chowdhury does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. This election, Gen Z and Millennials hold most of the voting power. How might they wield it? – https://theconversation.com/this-election-gen-z-and-millennials-hold-most-of-the-voting-power-how-might-they-wield-it-252803

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Dunley, Senior Lecturer in History and Maritime Strategy, UNSW Sydney

National security issues have been a constant feature of this federal election campaign.

Both major parties have spruiked their national security credentials by promising additional defence spending. The Coalition has pledged to spend 3% of Australia’s GDP on defence within a decade, while Labor is accelerating its own spending increase of $50 billion over the next decade.

Even the Greens have got in on the act, pledging to “decouple” Australia from the US military.

Against this backdrop, of course, is the omnipresent figure of US President Donald Trump, with questions about the reliability of the US as an ally and the impact his policy decisions will have on Australian security. The possible deployment of Russian aircraft to Indonesia and the Chinese warships sailing around Australia have made these issues even more salient.

But what do Australians actually know about defence issues, and what are they comfortable spending on it?

According to our major new survey of 1,500 Australian adults, only a third of respondents thought the defence budget should be increased.

The survey was conducted from late February to early March as part of our work at the War Studies Research Group to measure public attitudes towards the Australian Defence Force (ADF).

Australians know little about the ADF’s role

More than two-thirds of our respondents said they had a positive opinion of the ADF, and only 8% held a negative opinion. There were significant differences by political affiliation, with 76% of those expecting to vote for the Liberal Party having positive views compared to 72% of Labor supporters. By contrast, only 53% of Greens supporters felt the same way.

However, when asked how much they actually knew about the ADF and its activities, only a quarter of respondents felt well-informed.

One reason for this is that only 22% of respondents served in the ADF themselves, or had an immediate family member who had. Similarly, only 35% of respondents knew a veteran.

But even public knowledge on issues that have received considerable media attention was limited.

Remarkably, only 56% of respondents were aware of the allegations that Australian Special Forces soldiers committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Less than half had heard of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide.

Support for increasing defence spending is mixed

Successive governments have emphasised the rapidly deteriorating strategic environment in the Indo-Pacific region. This has led to much debate over whether Australia should increase its defence spending – and by how much.

In this election, both sides have committed more resources to upgrade and expand Australia’s military capabilities.

However, despite efforts to turn defence spending into a major issue at this election (especially on the right of politics), it is far from clear this has cut through with the wider population.

Our survey reveals public support for a larger ADF is split. Just over half of respondents thought the ADF was appropriately sized, while 41% considered it too small and 7% thought it too large.

Notably, when asked whether they thought more money should be spent on defence, the support for growth shrinks further.

Liberal supporters were the most likely to favour increasing the defence budget. But only 44% of them did, suggesting a majority felt that current spending on the ADF was either appropriate or too large.

Only 28% of Labor voters supported an increase in the defence budget. And among Greens voters, those supporting cuts to the defence budget outnumbered those in favour of expansion.

Read more:
Should Australia increase its defence spending? We asked 5 experts

Most still support the US, despite Trump

Ever since the US presidential election in November, many Australians have also questioned the US alliance and the AUKUS agreement, specifically. Recent actions by Trump – most notably his public statements on the Ukraine war – have only reinforced these doubts.

Given the tone of the public debate, we expected to see lower levels of support in our survey for the US alliance as the bedrock of Australian security.

However, respondents strongly favoured (75%) the ADF continuing to prioritise working closely with allies and partners, especially the US. Only 2% opposed it. Notably, there was very little variation based on political allegiance.

However, the idea of deploying the ADF to support our allies and partners overseas, including in the event of a conflict, saw greater division among respondents.

Two-thirds favoured deploying troops to support our allies overall. Liberal voters largely supported this proposition (75%), while 64% of Labor supporters backed it. Only about half of Greens voters felt the same way.

Respondents were also asked whether Australia should focus primarily on the defence of our territory rather than supporting our allies and partners in maintaining wider regional security. Just under half (46%) of respondents agreed with this idea, while 38% expressed neutral opinions and only 17% opposed it.

Overall, the results of this survey suggest that while the Australian public generally holds the ADF in high regard, they don’t know very much about it, nor do they consider additional funding for defence and security to be a real priority.

Successive governments, intelligence agencies and military analysts have long warned of the growing threats to Australia’s national security. Our survey suggests, however, that this messaging is either not cutting through – or that other concerns, such as housing or cost-of-living pressures, are taking priority.

Either way, it does not look like this issue will be decisive in the coming election.

This piece is part of a series on the future of defence in Australia. Read the other stories here.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Only a third of Australians support increasing defence spending: new research – https://theconversation.com/only-a-third-of-australians-support-increasing-defence-spending-new-research-253943

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

In Canada, the governing centre-left Liberals had trailed the Conservatives by more than 20 points in January, but now lead by five points and are likely to win a majority of seats at next Monday’s election. Meanwhile, United States President Donald Trump’s ratings in US national polls have dropped to a -5 net approval.

The Canadian election will be held next Monday, with the large majority of polls closing at 11:30am AEST Tuesday. The 343 MPs are elected by first past the post, with 172 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberals had looked doomed to a massive loss for a long time. In early January, the CBC Poll Tracker had given the Conservatives 44% of the vote, the Liberals 20%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 19%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 9%, the Greens 4% and the far-right People’s 2%. With these vote shares, the Conservatives would have won a landslide with well over 200 seats.

At the September 2021 election, the Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats on 32.6% of votes, the Conservatives 119 seats on 33.7%, the BQ 32 seats on 7.6%, the NDP 25 seats on 17.8%, the Greens two seats on 2.3% and the People’s zero seats on 4.9%. he Liberals were short of the 170 seats needed for a majority.

The Liberal vote was more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote owing to the Conservatives winning safe rural seats by huge margins. The BQ benefited from vote concentration, with all its national vote coming in Quebec, where it won 32.1%.

On January 6, Justin Trudeau, who had been Liberal leader and PM since winning the October 2015 election, announced he would resign these positions once a new Liberal leader was elected. Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was overwhelmingly elected Liberal leader on March 9 and replaced Trudeau as PM on March 14.

With the Liberals short of a parliamentary majority, parliament was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election and was due to resume on March 24. Carney is not yet an MP (he will contest Nepean at the election). Possibly owing to these factors, Carney called the election on March 23.

In Tuesday’s update to the CBC Poll Tracker, the Liberals had 43.1% of the vote, the Conservatives 38.4%, the NDP 8.3%, the BQ 5.8% (25.4% in Quebec), the Greens 2.2% and the People’s 1.4%. The Liberals have surged from 24 points behind in early January to their current 4.7-point lead.

Seat point estimates were 191 Liberals (over the 172 needed for a majority), 123 Conservatives, 23 BQ, five NDP and one Green. The tracker gives the Liberals an 80% chance to win a majority of seats and a 15% chance to win the most seats but not a majority.

The Liberal lead over the Conservatives peaked on April 8, when they led by 7.1 points. There has been slight movement back to the Conservatives since, with the French and English leaders’ debates last Wednesday and Thursday possibly assisting the Conservatives.

But the Liberals still lead by nearly five points in the polls five days before the election. With the Liberals’ vote more efficiently distributed, they are the clear favourites to win an election they looked certain to lose by a landslide margin in January.

Carney’s replacement of Trudeau has benefited the Liberals, but I believe the most important reason for the Liberals’ poll surge is Trump. Trump’s tariffs against Canada and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state have greatly alienated Canadians and made it more difficult for the more pro-Trump Conservatives.

In an early April YouGov Canadian poll, by 64–25, respondents said the US was unfriendly or an enemy rather than friendly or an ally (50–33 in February). By 84–11, they did not want Canada to become part of the US. If Canadians had been able to vote in the 2024 US presidential election, Kamala Harris would have defeated Donald Trump by 57–18 in this poll.

Trump’s US ratings have fallen well below net zero

In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump currently has a net approval of -5.4, with 50.8% disapproving and 45.4% approving. At the start of his term, Trump’s net approval was +12, but went negative in mid-March. His ratings fell to their current level soon after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2.

Silver has presidential approval poll data for previous presidents since Harry Truman (president from 1945–53). Trump’s current net approval is worse than for any other president at this point in their tenure except for Trump’s first term (2017–2021).

Silver also has a net favourability aggregate for Elon Musk that currently gives Musk a net favourable rating of -13.6 (53.0% unfavourable, 39.3% favourable). Musk’s ratings began to drop from about net zero before Trump’s second term commenced on January 20.

G. Elliott Morris used to manage the US poll aggregate site FiveThirtyEight before it was axed. He wrote last Friday that Trump’s net approval on the economy (at -5.8) is worse than at any point in his first term. During his first term, Trump’s net approval on the economy was mostly positive, helping to support his overall ratings.

Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. After stunning comeback, centre-left Liberals likely to win majority of seats at Canadian election – https://theconversation.com/after-stunning-comeback-centre-left-liberals-likely-to-win-majority-of-seats-at-canadian-election-254926

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Narelle Miragliotta, Associate Professor in Politics, Murdoch University

Election talk is inevitably focused on Labor and the Coalition because they are the parties that customarily form government.

But a minor party like the Greens is consequential, regardless of whether the election delivers a minority government. Certainly, the level of anti-Greens campaigning by third party groups, like Better Australia, suggests as much.

The Greens’ have declared that their electoral aim is to “Keep Dutton out and get Labor to act”. They know this would be best achieved in a minority government, where the crossbench would be powerful players.

But can the Greens build on their historic 2022 election result, which delivered four lower house seats and the balance of power in the Senate?

State of play

An aggregation of the main polls estimates the Greens’ nationwide primary vote has ticked up since 2022, now ranging from 12.4% to 14.1%.

They are expected to retain all six Senate seats up for election. When combined with their five other Senate seats, the party will be critical in the next parliament to the fate of legislation in the red chamber.

In the contest for the House, the Greens are defending a record four seats: Melbourne, Brisbane, Griffith and Ryan. Melbourne is held by party leader Adam Bandt, on a comfortable 8.5% margin. It is as safe as it gets for the Greens.

The balance of the party’s seats are all Brisbane-based, starting with Ryan, which is held by just 2.6% if the two-party preferred vote. Despite the slender margin, Ryan has better prospects than the neighbouring seat of Brisbane, which it holds by 3.6%. This is based on the party’s 2022 swing of almost 10%, which placed them second in Ryan on primary votes.

In contrast, the Greens finished in third position on primary votes in Brisbane on the back of a respectable, but much more modest swing of just under 5%. The electoral dynamics are also complicated because the seat is a genuine three-cornered contest.

On the other hand, Griffith is now classed as a safe seat for the Greens. The party attained the highest number of primary votes (34.6%) on the back of a 10.94% swing three years ago. The Greens should be able to defend Griffith.

Target seats

The Greens have declared five additional electorates as “priority target seats” – two in Victoria and one in each of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia.

Wills is the first of two Melbourne-based seats earmarked by the Greens. The party is betting on a redistribution in the Labor held seat, which independent analyst The Poll Bludger estimates will reduce the ALP’s primary vote by 2.6% and increase the Greens’ vote by 5%. The Greens are also fielding a high profile candidate, former state MP Samantha Ratnam.

In the case of Macnamara, the Greens finished in second position behind Labor in 2022. At the point of the Greens’ exclusion in the count they were on 32.84%, just marginally behind Labor on 33.48%

While the Greens’ prospects might be helped by a weakened Victorian Labor brand, victory could still prove elusive. In the case of Macnamara, the electorate takes in parts of the state seat of Prahran, which the party lost in a byelection in February. The by-election was precipitated by the resignation of the state Greens MP owing to allegations of inappropriate conduct with an intern.

Moreover, Liberal how-to-vote cards in both Wills and Macnamara are preferencing Labor over the Greens, which may be enough to push Labor over the line in both seats.

Chances elsewhere

The NSW seat of Richmond is a marginal Labor electorate that was once held by the Nationals. The Greens are calculating the seat is winnable based on their strong primary vote in 2022 and candidate continuity.

Richmond boasts one of the highest levels of rental stress in the nation, making it a perfect setting for Greens campaigning on housing affordability issues. Polling shows the Greens vote is up by 3% in NSW. If it’s accurate, and translates to Richmond, then the seat is potentially winnable.

Sturt in South Australia is the Liberal Party’s second most marginal seat (0.5%). However, the likelihood of a Greens victory is slim. At the 2022 election the Greens attracted only 16.39% of the primary vote, well behind both Labor and the Liberals.

The party’s final target seat is Perth, held by Labor on a very safe 14.4%, two party preferred. The seat’s demography explains why it’s a Greens priority. Perth is a relatively affluent inner metropolitan seat, with a high percentage of people who finished school, and a constituency that skews young.

But Perth is unlikely to turn to the Greens. In 2022 they finished in third position on primary votes (22.16%), well behind Labor (39.25%). The party’s Perth campaign may have also been damaged by plans, since abandoned, to hold a fundraising event on ANZAC Day.

Numbers game

Based only on the seats examined, the Greens will likely retain at least Melbourne and Griffith in the lower house, along with the 6 senate seats it is defending.

A more optimistic reading of the polling would also include Ryan, Brisbane and Wills. A best case scenario would also add Richmond and Macnamara to that list.

And then, of course, there are the unexpected victories that many of us simply don’t see coming. This is because party support and voter swings are never uniform at the seat level. There will be electorates that under-perform for all parties. And that includes the Greens.

Narelle Miragliotta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The Greens are hoping for another ‘greenslide’ election. What do the polls say? – https://theconversation.com/the-greens-are-hoping-for-another-greenslide-election-what-do-the-polls-say-254600

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Campbell Rider, PhD Candidate in Philosophy – Philosophy of Biology, University of Sydney

Whether or not we’re alone in the universe is one of the biggest questions in science.

A recent study, led by astrophysicist Nikku Madhusudhan at the University of Cambridge, suggests the answer might be no. Based on observations from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, the study points to alien life on K2-18b, a distant exoplanet 124 light years from Earth.

The researchers found strong evidence of a chemical called dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in the planet’s atmosphere. On Earth, DMS is produced only by living organisms, so it appears to be a compelling sign of life, or “biosignature”.

While the new findings have made headlines, a look at the history of astrobiology shows similar discoveries have been inconclusive in the past. The issue is partly theoretical: scientists and philosophers still have no agreed-upon definition of exactly what life is.

A closer look

Unlike the older Hubble telescope, which orbited Earth, NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope is placed in orbit around the Sun. This gives it a better view of objects in deep space.

When distant exoplanets pass in front of their host star, astronomers can deduce what chemicals are in their atmospheres from the tell-tale wavelengths they leave in the detected light. Since the precision of these readings can vary, scientists estimate a margin of error for their results, to rule out random chance. The recent study of K2-18b found only a 0.3% probability that the readings were a fluke, leaving researchers confident in their detection of DMS.

On Earth, DMS is only produced by life, mostly aquatic phytoplankton. This makes it a persuasive biosignature.

The findings line up with what scientists already conjecture about K2-18b. Considered a “Hycean” world (a portmanteau of “hydrogen” and “ocean”), K2-18b is thought to feature a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and a surface covered with liquid water. These conditions are favourable to life.

So does this mean K2-18b’s oceans are crawling with extraterrestrial microbes?

Some experts are less certain. Speaking to the New York Times, planetary scientist Christopher Glein expressed doubt that the study represents a “smoking gun”. And past experiences teach us that in astrobiology, inconclusive findings are the norm.

Life as we don’t know it

Astrobiology has its origins in efforts to explain how life began on our own planet.

In the early 1950s, the Miller-Urey experiment showed that an electrical current could produce organic compounds from a best-guess reconstruction of the chemistry in Earth’s earliest oceans – sometimes called the “primordial soup”.

Although it gave no real indication of how life in fact first evolved, the experiment left astrobiology with a framework for investigating the chemistry of alien worlds.

In 1975, the first Mars landers – Viking 1 and 2 – conducted experiments with collected samples of Martian soil. In one experiment, nutrients added to soil samples appeared to produce carbon dioxide, suggesting microbes were digesting the nutrients.

Initial excitement quickly dissipated, as other tests failed to pick up organic compounds in the soil. And later studies identified plausible non-biological explanations for the carbon dioxide. One explanation points to a mineral abundant on Mars called perchlorate. Interactions between perchlorate and cosmic rays may have led to chemical reactions similar to those observed by the Viking tests.

Concerns the landers’ instruments had been contaminated on Earth also introduced uncertainty.

In 1996, a NASA team announced a Martian meteorite discovered in Antarctica bore signs of past alien life. Specimen ALH84001 showed evidence of organic hydrocarbons, as well as magnetite crystals arranged in a distinctive pattern only produced biologically on Earth.

More suggestive were the small, round structures in the rock resembling fossilised bacteria. Again, closer analysis led to disappointment. Non-biological explanations were found for the magnetite grains and hydrocarbons, while the fossil bacteria were deemed too small to plausibly support life.

The most recent comparable discovery – claims of phosphine gas on Venus in 2020 – is also still controversial. Phosphine is considered a biosignature, since on Earth it’s produced by bacterial life in low-oxygen environments, particularly in the digestive tracts of animals. Some astronomers claim the detected phosphine signal is too weak, or attributable to inorganically produced sulfur compounds.

Each time biosignatures are found, biologists confront the ambiguous distinction between life and non-life, and the difficulty of extrapolating characteristics of life on Earth to alien environments.

Carol Cleland, a leading philosopher of science, has called this the problem of finding “life as we don’t know it”.

Moving beyond chemistry

We still know very little about how life first emerged on Earth. This makes it hard to know what to expect from the primitive lifeforms that might exist on Mars or K2-18b.

It’s uncertain whether such lifeforms would resemble Earth life at all. Alien life might manifest in surprising and unrecognisable ways: while life on Earth is carbon-based, cellular, and reliant on self-replicating molecules such as DNA, an alien lifeform might fulfil the same functions with totally unfamiliar materials and structures.

Our knowledge of the environmental conditions on K2-18b is also limited, so it’s hard to imagine the adaptations a Hycean organism might need to survive there.

Chemical biosignatures derived from life on Earth, it seems, might be a misleading guide.

Philosophers of biology argue that a general definition of life will need to go beyond chemistry. According to one view, life is defined by its organisation, not the list of chemicals making it up: living things embody a kind of self-organisation able to autonomously produce its own parts, sustain a metabolism, and maintain a boundary or membrane separating inside from outside.

Some philosophers of science claim such a definition is too imprecise. In my own research, I’ve argued that this kind of generality is a strength: it helps keep our theories flexible, and applicable to new contexts.

K2-18b may be a promising candidate for identifying extraterrestrial life. But excitement about biosignatures such as DMS disguises deeper, theoretical problems that also need to be resolved.

Novel lifeforms in distant, unfamiliar environments might not be detectable in the ways we expect. Philosophers and scientists will have to work together on non-reductive descriptions of living processes, so that when we do stumble across alien life, we don’t miss it.

Campbell Rider is the recipient of an Australian government RTP scholarship for his doctoral studies.

– ref. Scientists claim to have found evidence of alien life. But ‘biosignatures’ might hide more than they reveal – https://theconversation.com/scientists-claim-to-have-found-evidence-of-alien-life-but-biosignatures-might-hide-more-than-they-reveal-254801

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kelly Kirkland, Research Fellow in Psychology, The University of Queensland

Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.

But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?

In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.

On climate, Australians fall into six groups

Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.

But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.

At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.

In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.

For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.

Our views aren’t set in stone

People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.

What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.

What information would change minds?

What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.

The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.

Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.

The trust gap

Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.

Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.

In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.

What about action?

Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.

Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.

In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.

Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.

Why does this matter?

As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.

Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.

If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.

After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.

Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.

Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).

Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. What would change your mind about climate change? We asked 5,000 Australians – here’s what they told us – https://theconversation.com/what-would-change-your-mind-about-climate-change-we-asked-5-000-australians-heres-what-they-told-us-254329